Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: While the area is not listed as a key biodiversity area in accordance with the resources allocated, WWF lists it as an ecoregion with “the the highest bird species richness of all ecoregions that are completely within the Indo-Pacific region.”
Evidence B:The proposed area is Naga indigenous territory located in India and Myanmar. The proposed location is a key biodiversity area with high range of species rarity and intact forest landscape.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: In accordance with the spatial resources provided
Evidence B:The applicant does not describe potential carbon stock in the proposed location, but geospatial data indicated that the proposed location contain high carbon density.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: While the proposal goes into some detail on the historical origins of the state structure in Nagaland, it also provides evidence of the existing Naga traditional governance system
Evidence B:The proposed location is maintained by indigenous peoples, but they encounter some limitations from the government.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The applicant clearly explained the significant of the project site for IPLCs
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The proposal lists the following threats: mass tourism; Influx of immigrants and land grabbing; Incoherent government policies; land degradation and Thinning of forest; drying of springs
Evidence B:The proposed location faces some threats include land grabbing, land degradation, influx of immigrant, and unplanned tourism. Geospatial data also indicated high forest change in the proposed location.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: The proposal states that India North-east states have constitutional provisions, including the formation of a separate Hill Area Committee. However the State government has no adequate resources dedicated to the hill states.
Evidence B:The government of India has been enacting some supportive regulation for promotion of IPLC-led conservation, but it is lack in implementation.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: cf answer to Q6
Evidence B:National and sub-national government have implemented some supports for IPLC-led conservation.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The applicant has describe some successful pilot project in the proposed area. Therefore this project is beyond building a case study for IPLC-led conservation.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The applicant listed many potential collaboration of the proposed activities with existing programs under the applicant, Moreover, the applicant also indicates some potential collaboration with other NGOs to mobilize resource to implement the project.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proposed project is exceptionally aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to enhance UPLCs efforts to steward land and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The logic linking the series of activities to be conducted to the overall goal of stewardship of water, land and natural resources is not well elaborated in the proposal.
Evidence B:The proposed activities and results are well defined and cohesive but some aspect require detailed explanation and clarification.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proposed activities intended to strength IPLC institutions and economic activities at the rural level. This strategy can increase IPLCs’ control to territory, but it is not clearly described how these activities can prevent land grabbing, land degradation, influx of immigrant.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:the proposed activities and results are exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The applicant has many programs that can support the implementation of the proposed activities.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The protected area is 1.246.300 ha, but landscape under improved practices is 20.000 ha. Potential beneficiaries is 400 villages.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Additional cultural and livelihoods results are directed from the proposed activities.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The applicant has permanent funding such as BftW and ICCO that have been supporting the applicant more than two decades. The result of the proposed activities than is not a long-term sustainable IPLC-led conservation. To reach that goal is require another project after the proposed project accomplished.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proposed projects is well aligned with NBSAP and NDCs of the Government of India,
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proposed project is very sensitive with women participation. Some special activities are directed to empower women in decision-making process.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proposed project provide high potential transformative result.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The applicant is an indigenous led organisation and work partially with NGOs in implementing activities to support indigenous peoples in Nagaland
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The applicant is an indigenous led organisation with long history of supporting indigenous peoples in the region.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with local and national NGOs.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Staff in the organisation have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF project
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The annual budget of the applicant is USD 216.216 and this amount indicated that the applicant has provided good capacity to implement the proposed project.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The applicant has internal financial policy and use Tally accounting sisyem which is most accepted accounting standards in India.